ROMAN SPA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF),
v.
MARION LUBELL, APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF), AND CONNORS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLEE (THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Connors, finding that Roman Spa's liability was not contingent on Connors' liability.
Lubell sued Roman Spa for negligent ceiling maintenance. Roman Spa filed a third-party complaint against Connors for indemnification. The jury found f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Derivative Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
In Roman Spa, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), we reversed the final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Lubell. By its decision in Lubell v. Roman Spa, Inc., 362 So. 2d 922 (1978), the Supreme Court reversed our decision, reinstated the judgment and remanded the case to us with directions that we consider the points on appeal originally raised by Spa against the indemnity verdict in favor of Connors. It was unnecessary that we initially consider this issue.
Lubell sued Spa for damages alleging that Spa negligently maintained the ceiling, and that the negligent condition of the ceiling was known by it or had existed for a sufficient length of time that Spa should have known of it. Spa filed a third party complaint against Connors seeking indemnification in the event it was found liable to Lubell. The jury found for Lubell and for Connors. A detailed statement of the case and of the facts can be found in Roman Spa, Inc., supra.
Spa, in its reply brief, states:
“If Roman Spa knew of the defective and dangerous ceiling . . . or if Roman Spa should have known of it because it would have been discovered upon inspection, then responsibility for the condition is Roman Spa’s, not Connors. . . .”
“Connors should have been dismissed from the case at the beginning, or at the close of the case upon the ground that plaintiff had not elected to sue it and it was not, under the facts and theory of the case, liable to Roman Spa.”
We affirm the judgment in favor of Connors.
McCORD, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lubell v. Roman SPA, Inc., 362 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1978)
- Roman SPA, Inc. v. Lubell, 334 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)